In 2015, the United States generated over 250 million tons of municipal solid waste. Of this, food products comprised nearly 15% of this waste. Food waste is a major contributor to greenhouse gasses and subsequent climate change. An on-going examination from the vantage of multiple academic disciplines is needed to understand and work toward solutions for this “wicked” problem. The University of Maine’s interdisciplinary Materials Management team, composed of a psychologist, nurse scientist, environmental/civil engineer, anthropologist, food scientist, an economist, works to examine and guide food waste solutions. Strategies to achieve successful interdisciplinary approaches for addressing sustainability problems include authentic listening, stakeholder engagement, and student participation. For example, the work of the psychologist brings attitude/behavior/organizational understanding and expertise to the interdisciplinary team with the aim to implement strategies for outcome-oriented solutions. Overcome- ing disciplinary language barriers and securing interdisciplinary grant funding are examples of challenges that must be addressed if interdisciplinary teams are to succeed.

Sustainable consumption is often thought of primarily in terms of the first stage, that of consumption. Food that is appropriate for human consumption but discarded because it is beyond the questionable expiratory date or left to spoil (Food and Agriculture Organizations of the United Nations [FAO], 2013) is an equally important issue: specifically, all that is produced but not consumed ends up as waste. Such waste contributes significantly to greenhouse gasses and subsequent climate change.

∗Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Deborah A. Saber, Senator George J. Mitchell Center for Sustainability Solutions, University of Maine. [e-mail: [email protected]].

114

⃝C 2020 The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues

Food Waste as a Classic Problem 115

According to the FAO (2018), a 60% increase in global food production will be needed to meet the growing demands of the world population; conversely, more than one-third of the food currently produced goes to waste. In 2015, the United States generated approximately 258 million tons of municipal solid waste, 14.9% of which was food (Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2016). Of the 136 million tons landfilled, almost 22% was food (EPA, 2016). While some sustainability programs have been introduced at local and state levels (Saha, 2009), there is a growing need to support efforts toward a circular food economy in which food does not end up as waste.

Research related to specific segments of food waste (e.g., reduction and reuse) adds disconnected pieces to the growing knowledge (Ryan-Fogarty, Becker, Moles, & O’Regan, 2017). However, food waste is what has been termed a “wicked” problem—that is, a problem that is interconnected, multifaceted, ill-defined, and dynamic, and thus calls for solutions that are themselves interconnected (Rittel & Webber, 1973). Grassroots efforts, corporate action spanning over numerous industries, and government leadership are all beginning to recognize the multifaceted nature of knowledge needed to solve problems like food waste (Warner, 2012).

In the face of complexities, calls have begun for interdisciplinary research teams to assemble within academic environments and work toward solutions to “wicked” problems. Using model-driven integrative applied research approaches, the state of the science recommends synergistically engaging researchers from multiple disciplines, seeking input from stakeholders, and providing contemporary data to support policymakers (Bammer, 2013; Fam, Palmer, Riedy, & Mitchell, 2017; Hart et al., 2015). Some universities are now taking steps to increase the potential for interdisciplinary work. They are employing innovative “cluster hires” through which new faculty in different departments are interviewed and hired together to work on shared problems that are multifaceted and deeply complex. The National Science Foundation supports large-scale grants that are aimed at building interdisciplinary efforts to deal with complex problems (Rocco, Bainbridge, Tonn, & Whitesides, 2013). Coming together culminates in work and outputs that consider diverse disciplinary perspectives with the realization that food waste reduction requires much more than individual academic disciplines working in parallel. Solutions-driven work necessitates a systems approach that looks beyond the borders of academia and considers behavior influenced by individual and group perceptions and motivations (Ginn & Lickel, 2020; Hamann & Reese, 2020; Kurz & Prosser, 2020). This approach to problem solving begins with a sustainability team focused on food waste mitigation with considerations to specific behaviors to meet the requirements of numerous diverse targeted audiences (Leviston & Uren, 2020).

The Materials Management Team (MM) at the University of Maine, now entering its fifth year, has assembled faculty from key disciplines to achieve a

116 Saber and Silka

a better understanding of how to reduce food waste that contributes to climate change. In this article, the work of the interdisciplinary team is described as an important illustration of how to use key models, such as the EPA’s Food Recovery Hierarchy (EPA, 2019), that depend on multiple approaches to address and work toward solutions.

A Brief Summary of the EPA’s Food Recovery Hierarchy

An internationally recognized model that is often used to guide actions aimed at reducing food waste is the EPA’s Food Recovery Hierarchy (See Appendix A for EPA Hierarchy). The model proposes preventing food waste, addressing food insecurity, and ensuring that nutrients are cycled back into our soils and our localized food production systems (United States Department of Agriculture, n.d.) . The hierarchy frames the scope of interest and can be used as a “boundary object” that facilitates teams reaching across the lanes of academic disciplines with the inclusion of community residents, community partners, and policymakers (Bammer, 2013; Mattor et al., 2014).

Sustainable consumption research and program implementation challenges are complex because there are many comingled aspects of the problem, and the hierarchy can be used to guide teamwork. Indeed, sustainable consumption solutions require individuals—and groups—to work with all stakeholders across different academic disciplines, including community residents and policymakers. Moreover, discussions about solutions need to consider personal drivers, such as attitudes and beliefs that influence behaviors and that impact environmental sustainability (Hart et al., 2015; Tugwell, Robinson, Grishaw, & Santesso, 2006). For example, waste may result from perceptions that discolored vegetables and dented fruit are not edible or the belief that surplus food from healthcare settings is contaminated and cannot be donated.

Interdisciplinary Team Work––A Case Exemplar

The intersectionality of waste, the need for interdisciplinary partnerships, and a focus on solutions that target both group and individual behavior require that disciplines work together. Within the MM team, disciplines of psychology, nursing, environmental/civil engineering, anthropology, food processing, and economics bring critical expertise to the food waste/diversion team (See Appendix B for a diagram describing teamwork). Individual team members focus on specific levels within the Food Recovery Hierarchy: the food processing scientist examines the use of biomaterials in food packaging to improve the shelf life of food products; the anthropologist and nurse scientist examine waste practices and barriers for food reuse to understand individual practices and organizational cultures and norms that could be targeted to reduce waste; the environmental/civil engineer

Food Waste as a Classic Problem 117

examines food waste reuse through anaerobic digestion processes to recover renewable energy and soil nutrients; the economist focuses on expanding composting efforts by creating a community-based, commercially viable composting program. Finally, the psychologist is central to attitude/behavior/organizational understanding when working to implement strategies of outcome-oriented change behavior that supports environmental sustainability.

The team consistently meets every 2 weeks at the team sustainability hub, the George J. Mitchell Center for Sustainability Solutions, to discuss media and Maine EPA updates, articles or books, grant opportunities and updates, and manuscript progress. The social psychologist highlights university, literature, and media information that guides the direction of the group with consideration to individual academic and research commitments and group dynamics. Three components guide the team’s work: (1) systems thinking; (2) stakeholder participatory research; and (3) continuous evaluation and process updating.

(1) Using a systems approach to teamwork, there is the consideration for the elements of study, a pattern or relationship between two or more elements, the system (relationship pattern between elements), and interaction or change in one component that may effect change in another (Grigg, 2016). The MM team recognizes that research from all disciplines cannot be combined into a one-dimensional study, and the input from the EPA framework provides an overarching theme for teamwork. In fact, differences in discipline perspective add critical value to comprehensive, interdisciplinary sustainable solutions. To learn from each other and understand discipline-specific languages, issues, and barriers, the team invests time into active listening (Gilligan, 2019; Mattor et al., 2014). Understanding industry—or setting—specific behaviors and challenges lead to multifaceted, yet holistic, solutions that are required when addressing a “wicked” problem.

The team examined different sectors of the industry that resulted in findings to inform unique solutions. For example, the healthcare industry is faced with two unique food waste challenges. First, hospitalized patients are ill and many experience appetite suppression, which results in large amounts of uneaten food (Lazell, 2016; McAdams, von Massow, Gallant, & Hayhoe, 2019; Williams & Walton, 2011). Thus, unique food delivery systems that are found to be successful in healthcare settings (McCray, Maunder, Norris, Moir, & MacKenzie-Shalders, 2018; Williams & Walton, 2011) may not apply to other settings. Second, the MM nurse researcher found that hospital food waste is predominantly disposed of via sink and not recorded. In addition, the processes to encourage reuse (e.g., composting and food donation) are not largely supported within healthcare systems (Saber, Azizi, Dreyer, & Nadeau, 2019). Industry-guided solutions to mitigate healthcare food waste may include developing processes or procedures to better facilitate food donation and composting. In contrast, MM industry stakeholder meetings found that the barriers in residential food reuse could be reduced through

118 Saber and Silka

policies that maximize diversion (e.g., composting and anaerobic digestion) while providing incentives (e.g., monetary) that reward efforts (Isenhour, 2018).

(2) In line with the Mitchell Center’s tenets of solutions-driven sustainability science, the MM team works to strategically develop stakeholder engagement. One successful partnership resulted when the MM economist secured grant funding to advance a working relationship between a composting company and dairy farm to produce a rich product for reuse by customers, landscapers, and gardeners. In addition, MM team stakeholder working groups informed policymakers about the need for food donation liability protection and tax incentives, and the economic, social, educational benefits of food waste reduction programs in K-12 schools (Isenhour, 2018). Finally, community partners are invited to meetings and MM members serve on stakeholder leadership teams. These partnerships provide insight and organizational context for research studies and project work and have provided opportunities for academic researchers to disseminate findings to industry leaders. In this way, industry and academia synergistically and continually work toward solutions.

(3) Over the past 5 years, the MM team has developed strategies to meet changing educational trends and industry workforce needs. In 2018 and 2019, the team expanded to include interdisciplinary undergraduate students (UGs). The students matched research interests with MM team members. Two aims were directed at learning skills that are needed to work within interdisciplinary teams. First, UGs learned about the critical need for a circular food economy through the lens of multiple disciplines. Second, each student conducted discipline-specific research (i.e., nursing, economics, environmental/civil engineering, anthropology, and food science) and learned to remove silos of study, work productively with community partners, and link research findings.

Challenges/Limitations of Interdisciplinary Work

Interdisciplinary approaches to address sustainable consumption are both valuable and necessary. However, three challenges should not be overlooked. First, disciplinary languages (e.g., technical language) often are quite different— even in ways that the faculty might not fully realize until they attempt to study and address the problem collectively. Learning from other disciplines and respecting perspectives is critical for high functioning teams (Mattor et al., 2014). Second, finding funding for such interdisciplinary work can be challenging. In individual disciplines, specific funding sources are available to support work and costs can be kept relatively low because few people need to be involved. This changes with interdisciplinary partnerships. Funders may not support work that does not fit typical categories, and the cost––in time––can be greater because of the need for team collaboration. The MM team has targeted grants requiring interdisciplinary research teams that resulted in internal and extramural funding. Third, siloed

Food Waste as a Classic Problem 119

structures in universities that are used to evaluate faculty success may not fully support team research that takes the faculty member away from the department and leads to publications in unfamiliar journals or industry reports (Richardson, Ginn, Prosser, Fernando, & Judge, 2020). The MM team has purposely written team interdisciplinary manuscripts. Clear attention to the techniques described in the literature on boundary spanning is greatly beneficial in addressing these problems (McGreavy et al., 2015; Silka, McGreavy, & Hart, 2019).

Conclusion

This article focused on the value and challenges of working in interdisciplinary teams concerned with a “wicked problem”: food waste and sustainable consumption. Through deliberate relationship building, problems can be better understood facilitating the identification of viable solutions. The benefits of bringing psychological insights into such contexts are not to be underestimated because work quality depends on the psychological health of the team.

The MM approach described also brings new opportunities to teach the future workforce and scientists how to effectively work in interdisciplinary teams to understand how research can lead to solutions. Students are recruited from multiple disciplines with outcomes that include publications and presentations (Berry et al., 2019). Coming together with students culminates in work and outputs that consider diverse disciplinary perspectives. The MM efforts strongly suggest that there is a critical need to find effective, innovative ways to bring disciplines together to make real progress on wicked problems.

Acknowledgment

The authors are grateful to the Senator George J. Mitchell Center for Sustainability Solutions for strong continued support.

References

Bammer, G. (2013). Disciplining interdisciplinary: Integration and implementation sciences for re-searching complex real-world problems. Canberra, Australia: ANU E Press.

Berry, B., Kleisinger, S., Nadeau, H., Patterson, T., Flynn, A., & Horton, S. (2019). Talking trash: Creating a circular food system in Maine. Presentation at Senator George J. Mitchell Center for Sustainability Solutions Spring 2019 Sustainability Talks. Orono, ME.

Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). Advancing sustainable materials management: 2014 Fact sheet. Retrieved June 13, 2018, from https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about- materials-waste-and-recycling/advancing-sustainable-materials-management

Environmental Protection Agency. (2019). Sustainable management of food: Food recovery hierarchy. Retrieved January 20, 2020, from https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/food- recovery-hierarchy#about

Fam, D., Palmer, J., Riedy, C., & Mitchell, C. (Eds.) . (2017). Transdisciplinary research and practice for sustainability outcomes. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

120 Saber and Silka

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2013). Toolkit: Reducing the food wastage footprint. Retrieved June 18, 2018, from http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3342e/ i3342e.pdf

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2018). Food waste footprint. Retrieved June 18, 2018, from http://www.fao.org/nr/sustainability/food-loss-and-waste/en/

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2020). Water-energy-food nexus. Retrieved January 20, 2020, from http://www.fao.org/land-water/water/watergovernance/waterfoodenergynexus/en/

Gilligan, J. M. (2019). Expertise across disciplines: Establishing common ground in interdisciplinary disaster research teams. Risk Analysis, https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13407

Ginn, J., & Lickel, B. (2020). A motivated defense of meat: Biased perceptions of meat’s environmental impact. Journal of Social Issues, 76, 54–69.

Grigg, N. (2016). Systems thinking as an IWRM tool. In N. S. Grigg (Ed.), Integrated water resource management: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 119–138). Palgrave Macmillan.

Hamann, K. R. S., & Reese, G. (2020). My influence on the world (of Others): Goal efficacy beliefs and efficacy effect predict private, public, and activist pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 76, 35–53.

Hart, D., Bell, K., Lindenfeld, L., Jain, S., Johnson, T., Ranco, D., & McGill, B. (2015). Strength- ending the role of universities in addressing sustainability challenges: The Mitchell Center for Sustainability Solutions as an institutional experiment. Ecology and Society, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07283-200204

Isenhour, C. (2018). LD 15334 Stakeholder Working Group: Final report. Waste is not the Maine Way. Retrieved April 1, 2018, from https://umaine.edu/mitchellcenter/wp-content/uploads/sites/293/ 2018/01/FINAL-FULL-REPORT.pdf

Lazell, J. (2016). Consumer food waste behavior in universities: Sharing as a means of prevention. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 15(5), 430–439. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1581

Leviston, Z., & Uren, H. V. (2020). Overestimating one’s “green” behavior: Better-than-average bias may function to reduce perceived personal threat from climate change. Journal of Social Issues, 76, 70–85.

Kurz, T., Prosser, A. M. B., Rabinovich, A., & O’Neill, S. (2020). Could vegans and Lycra cyclists be bad for the planet? Theorizing the role of moralized minority practice identities in processes of societal-level change. Journal of Social Issues, 76, 86–100.

Mattor, K., Betsill, M., Huayhuaca, C., Huber-Stearns, H., Jedd, T., Sternlieb, F., . . . Cheng, A. S. (2014). Transdisciplinary research on environmental governance: A view from the inside. Environmental Science & Policy, 42, 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.06.002

McAdams, B., von Massow, M., Gallant, M., & Hayhoe, M. A. (2019). A cross-industry evaluation of food waste in restaurants. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 22(5), 449–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/15378020.2019.1637220

McCray, S., Maunder, K., Norris, R., Moir, J., & MacKenzie-Shalders, K. (2018). Bedside menu ordering system increases energy and protein intake while decreasing plate waste and food costs in hospital patients. Clinical Nutrition ESPEN, 26, 66–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnesp.2018.04.012

McGreavy, B., Lindenfeld, L., Hutchins, K., Silka, L., Leahy, J., & Zoellick, W. (2015). Communication and sustainability science teams as complex systems. Ecology and Society, 20(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06644-200102

Richardson, L. M., Ginn, J., Prosser, A. M. B., Fernando, J. W., & Judge, M. (2020). Improving research on the psychology of sustainable consumption: Some considerations from an early career perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 76, 150–163.

Rittel, H. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.

Rocco, M. C., Bainbridge, W. S., Tonn, B., & Whitesides, G. (2013). Overview and recommendations. In M. C. Roco, W. S. Bainbridge, B. Tonn, & G. Whitesides (Eds.), Convergence of knowledge, technology, and society: Beyond convergence of nano-bio-cognitive technologies (pp. 7–32). New York, NY: Springer.

Food Waste as a Classic Problem 121

Ryan-Fogarty, Y., Becker, G., Moles, R., & O’Regan, B. (2017). Backcasting to identify food waste prevention and mitigation opportunities for infant feeding in maternity services. Waste Management, 61, 405–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.12.029

Saber, D., Azizi, R., Dreyer, S., & Nadeau, H. (2019). Hospital food waste: Reducing waste and cost to our environment. Manuscript in preparation.

Saha, D. (2009). Factors influencing local government sustainability efforts. State & Local Government Review, 41(1), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160323×0904100105

Silka, L., McGreavy, B., & Hart, D. (2019). Health, the environment, and sustainability: Emergent communication lessons across highly diverse public participation activities. In S. Depoe, G. Walker, & K. Hunt (Eds.), Communication and public participation in environmental decision making (pp. 17–40). New York, NY: State University of New York Press.

Tugwell, P., Robinson, V., Grishaw, J., & Santesso, N. (2006). Systematic reviews and knowledge translation. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 84, 643–651. https://doi.org/10.2471/blt.05.026658

United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.) . Selected new and ongoing USDA food loss and waste reduction activities. Retrieved June 22, 2018, from https://www.usda.gov/oce/foodwaste/ usda_commitments.html

Warner, J. R. (2012). Interest groups in health care policy and politics. In D. J. Mason, J. K. Leavitt, & W. W. Chaffee (Eds.), Policy & politics in nursing and health care (6th ed., pp. 594–601). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.

Williams, P., & Walton, K. (2011). Plate waste in hospitals and strategies of change. e- SPEN the European e-Journal of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism, 6, e235–e241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclnm.2011.09.006

Appendix A

Recovery Food Hierarchy (EPA, 2019)

122

Saber and Silka

Appendix B

Interdisciplinary Food Waste/Diversion Team Work

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
*Risk Perceptions
*Individuals Attitudes and Behavior *Groups Influence and Group Interactions *Impacts of Context and Social Control

* Healthcare waste * Levels 1, 4, 5

Economics

* Prolonging Shelf-life * Level 1

* Risk Perception * Levels 1, 2

Food Science

Anthropology

* Composting * Levels 1, 5

Nursing

DEBORAH A. SABER is an Assistant Professor in Nursing and Faculty Associate at the Senator George J. Mitchell Center of Sustainability Solutions at the University of Maine. Her research focuses on understanding food disposal methods and the barriers to environmentally sustainable waste disposal solutions in both acute care hospitals and long-term healthcare settings.

LINDA SILKA is a Senior Fellow at the Senator George J. Mitchell Center for Sustainability Solutions at the University of Maine. As a social psychologist with expertise in environmental sustainability, her research focuses on building high-functioning interdisciplinary teams.

Copyright of Journal of Social Issues is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.